8 ms·

We need to accept that tech companies that control the modern means of communications and commerce are defacto governments. And treat them as such. Communicati

We need to accept that tech companies that control the modern means of communications and commerce are defacto governments. And treat them as such. Communication on these platforms is public, protected speech just as it was on your street corner. And commerce on these platforms should be protected in the same way as commerce on the street. Government is government and needs to be restrained in all of its forms or it will become a force of authoritarianism that either works on it's own or within the machinations of current government. The EU is going the right direction with the Digital Markets Act. This act implicitly suggests that these gatekeepers have a special status though it does not outright call them what they are - governments. Speech protection should also be there as it is in all functional, modern governments. As should transparent legal process. Governments should have representation from their constituency. Big tech is government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act

astrange 4y ago
You definitely should not treat them as the government. For one thing, that'd mean the government would have the personal info behind everyone's social media accounts. For another, you can't sue the government unless it lets you do it. There's a reason NCMEC (the agency social media sites are required to report CSAM to) is a private organization and not "the government"; it's to protect your privacy rights via the 4th Amendment.
- Ptchd 4y ago
  They do get that info from them already... Didn't you see Snowden's leak 10 years ago?
  - astrange 4y ago
    I actually know how these things work and you don’t need to lecture me with what you thought you understood someone bragging in a PowerPoint to mean. They get that info through legal processes like subpoenas that Twitter is entitled to fight because they’re private. And they put lots of legally unnecessary effort and their own money into fighting them; other platforms don’t try nearly as hard to stop it. See the DevinCow case. Of course Elon just fired the exec who did this.
    - Ptchd 4y ago
      > I actually know how these things work At least you think you do...
      - astrange 4y ago
        As in I've dealt with all of it professionally and spoken to lawyers on all these topics, yes. Also, this story seems to be fake anyway. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-intercepts-story-about-government-policing-disinfo-is-absolute-garbage/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-i...
ra120271 4y ago
I think I agree with your intent - the comparison of Big tech is government didn't gel with my perception. What I agree with is that Big Tech is forming digital Public Spaces (rather than being a government) and as such there should be parity in rights and protections of being in a digital Public Space. The distinction for me is that ones rights in a Public Space are different to those in a Commercial Communal Space (such as communal space in a Shopping Mall). I'd like to see a trend to open digital environments being treated as Public Spaces and away from Commercial Communal Space. Edit: for correcting typos
- blfr 4y ago
  the comparison of Big tech is government didn't gel with my perception Because they're not like the big governments with armies, they're like the smaller, local authorities issuing building permits and whatnot. Less dangerous but more annoying and and should be limited as well.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    In what way are they like small governments?
themitigating 4y ago
What makes it like a government? You didn't offer any explanations except that they control speech, however they only control speech on their service and there are alternative services unlike the government
- Dah00n 4y ago
  Lots of government services post on Facebook - often only on Facebook. You can't comment on that or read it elsewhere. There are no alternatives unless the poster picks it for you.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Alternative to what? Protest? Why does it have to be the Facebook post?
  - parminya 4y ago
    That doesn't make Facebook like a government though. If twenty years ago the government chose to advertise a job in the three largest newspapers in a city, and not in the Dah00n Times, that doesn't make the newspapers like a government or incorporate them into the government. It might mean that people should question whether the government is too closely tied to certain private corporations. But that's a different question.
- largepeepee 4y ago
  Just having one service ban you will screw up your life, such is the case of one programmer who uploaded a picture of his toddler to let the doctor check for infection - and got permanently banned by the AI, losing access to his Gmail and other Google tools registered to him. And services rarely act alone, when they do decide to target someone, they usually act in unison to deplatform, whether justified or not. In some ways big tech is far more powerful than governments.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 4y ago
hackerlight 4y ago
This analogy, like most analogies, confuses more than it clarifies. It sounds plausible but it's disanalogous in ways that make the analogy more of a rhetorical device than something useful. You should just appeal to first principles and make the direct case that social media companies have too much power over speech and can be used by the US government to bypass the First Amendment, and they therefore need to be regulated. Which is a case that I would probably disagree with unless the specifics of what you wanted to do in response were fleshed out. The problem here is with the US government, not with social media companies.
parminya 4y ago
If they're defacto governments, then they should be nationalised. If government is government, that extends to elected leaders or appointments by elected or responsible members of the executive. This of course entails the balkanisation of the internet, but it's the logical conclusion of your position.
cudgy 4y ago
Not sure I agree that big tech is government, but now that the government is an agent of big tech with the use of controlling free speech via their portal (could also argue that big tech is an agent of government), it seems to open the door for a constitutional argument that these tech companies are now under the umbrella of the first amendment.
- nradov 4y ago
  That is essentially the core legal issue behind the State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. lawsuit. If big tech companies are censoring speech at the request of the federal government then should they be legally treated as an arm of the government? It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules. https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/09/29/attorney-general-schmitt-five-other-states-file-suit-challenging-biden-administration-s-student-loan-cancellation-program https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/09/29/attorney-general-sch...
EarlKing 4y ago
They are not defacto governments. They are holding themselves out as Common Carriers when it suits them, and therefore to obtain the privileges that pertain to that status they should be required to meet certain criteria that one would expect from a Common Carrier, such as Equal Access (in the sense of what was provided by RBOCs to CLECs after the breakup of Ma Bell/AT&T) and true Network Neutrality. You don't get to be a Common Carrier and be a publisher. It's one or the other. Editorializing means you become a publisher and take responsibility for everything that goes on your site just as a newspaper would. Don't like it? Be a Common Carrier. We don't need any new law... we just need to apply existing legal principles and stop pussyfooting around it. Either they're Common Carriers or they're not. Either they're deserving of Section 230's protections or they're not. Pick one.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  I’ve taken strong pushback (on here, and Twitter) for a couple of years for saying these things. People want to get hyper technical about what a “common carrier” is and has been, historically, and how it’s not actually analogous. I get all of that. It’s time to modify and expand the definition. Hopefully, more people are waking up to the truth of this.
  - nfgivivu 4y ago
    It's because most people can't handle hypotheticals very well in general. Assuming social networks are common carriers means also assuming that laws and law enforcement would need to adapt to the resulting spam filled environment. People would also need to adjust the way they communicate online, you'd need to create something similar to google plus circles to allow free and open discussion that is self moderated. You'd need new forms of trust protocols. You'd need... Most people just can't fathom how much would need to change to make the internet work. They try to fit in what we have now and just say well that won't work so you're wrong. I've noticed people also struggle with the big tech censorship argument. The amount of times I've said, censorship laws should extend to social networks and been met with "censorship only applies to government" arguments as if that wasn't the exact premise my argument started with just boggles the mind. Yes, I know, they're private companies, I'm advocating for changing laws so they do apply, not applying laws that don't apply.
_cenw 4y ago
A street corner is not the same as social media. A street corner speech will always have limited impact, unless someone films it and uploads it to YouTube. This amplification used to be a privilege of the media, and there are upsides and downsides to everyone having a chance at such reach now, and a lot of questionable incentives bound to how such reach can be attained. Instead of one Overton window, we now have multiple, bound to their social media audiences. To properly disseminate all this information is a full-time job for a human brain and most people just seem to stick with what seems proper to them. When can we have this conversation instead of the tired "social media censorship" debate.
nradov 4y ago
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested that Congress consider extending common carrier legislation to cover social media platforms. This would essentially prohibit social media companies from removing any legal content (perhaps including some forms of spam), but they would still be able to give users tools for filtering content that they see. This would be a form of compelled speech, which does raise 1st Amendment concerns. But in principle it's no different from forcing telephone companies to carry all voice traffic without active censorship. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
bradgessler 4y ago
Governments will always be happy to permit monopolies to large networks in exchange for monitoring & control. Likewise; large networks will happily grant access to governments in exchange for them staying off their back and keeping completion to a minimum.
kornhole 4y ago
Thank you for explaining it like that. Some refer to these platforms as GACC(Government, AI, Corporate Controlled), but this could be abbreviated to simply government controlled. These governments are not elected by the people and are primarily driven by profit. Inverted totalitarianism is when economics besets politics.

astrange 4y ago

You definitely should not treat them as the government. For one thing, that'd mean the government would have the personal info behind everyone's social media accounts. For another, you can't sue the government unless it lets you do it. There's a reason NCMEC (the agency social media sites are required to report CSAM to) is a private organization and not "the government"; it's to protect your privacy rights via the 4th Amendment.

Ptchd 4y ago
They do get that info from them already... Didn't you see Snowden's leak 10 years ago?
- astrange 4y ago
  I actually know how these things work and you don’t need to lecture me with what you thought you understood someone bragging in a PowerPoint to mean. They get that info through legal processes like subpoenas that Twitter is entitled to fight because they’re private. And they put lots of legally unnecessary effort and their own money into fighting them; other platforms don’t try nearly as hard to stop it. See the DevinCow case. Of course Elon just fired the exec who did this.
  - Ptchd 4y ago
    > I actually know how these things work At least you think you do...
    - astrange 4y ago
      As in I've dealt with all of it professionally and spoken to lawyers on all these topics, yes. Also, this story seems to be fake anyway. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-intercepts-story-about-government-policing-disinfo-is-absolute-garbage/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-i...

ra120271 4y ago

I think I agree with your intent - the comparison of Big tech is government didn't gel with my perception. What I agree with is that Big Tech is forming digital Public Spaces (rather than being a government) and as such there should be parity in rights and protections of being in a digital Public Space. The distinction for me is that ones rights in a Public Space are different to those in a Commercial Communal Space (such as communal space in a Shopping Mall). I'd like to see a trend to open digital environments being treated as Public Spaces and away from Commercial Communal Space. Edit: for correcting typos

blfr 4y ago
the comparison of Big tech is government didn't gel with my perception Because they're not like the big governments with armies, they're like the smaller, local authorities issuing building permits and whatnot. Less dangerous but more annoying and and should be limited as well.
- themitigating 4y ago
  In what way are they like small governments?

themitigating 4y ago

What makes it like a government? You didn't offer any explanations except that they control speech, however they only control speech on their service and there are alternative services unlike the government

Dah00n 4y ago
Lots of government services post on Facebook - often only on Facebook. You can't comment on that or read it elsewhere. There are no alternatives unless the poster picks it for you.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Alternative to what? Protest? Why does it have to be the Facebook post?
- parminya 4y ago
  That doesn't make Facebook like a government though. If twenty years ago the government chose to advertise a job in the three largest newspapers in a city, and not in the Dah00n Times, that doesn't make the newspapers like a government or incorporate them into the government. It might mean that people should question whether the government is too closely tied to certain private corporations. But that's a different question.
largepeepee 4y ago
Just having one service ban you will screw up your life, such is the case of one programmer who uploaded a picture of his toddler to let the doctor check for infection - and got permanently banned by the AI, losing access to his Gmail and other Google tools registered to him. And services rarely act alone, when they do decide to target someone, they usually act in unison to deplatform, whether justified or not. In some ways big tech is far more powerful than governments.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 4y ago

hackerlight 4y ago

This analogy, like most analogies, confuses more than it clarifies. It sounds plausible but it's disanalogous in ways that make the analogy more of a rhetorical device than something useful. You should just appeal to first principles and make the direct case that social media companies have too much power over speech and can be used by the US government to bypass the First Amendment, and they therefore need to be regulated. Which is a case that I would probably disagree with unless the specifics of what you wanted to do in response were fleshed out. The problem here is with the US government, not with social media companies.

parminya 4y ago

If they're defacto governments, then they should be nationalised. If government is government, that extends to elected leaders or appointments by elected or responsible members of the executive. This of course entails the balkanisation of the internet, but it's the logical conclusion of your position.

cudgy 4y ago

Not sure I agree that big tech is government, but now that the government is an agent of big tech with the use of controlling free speech via their portal (could also argue that big tech is an agent of government), it seems to open the door for a constitutional argument that these tech companies are now under the umbrella of the first amendment.

nradov 4y ago
That is essentially the core legal issue behind the State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. lawsuit. If big tech companies are censoring speech at the request of the federal government then should they be legally treated as an arm of the government? It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules. https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/09/29/attorney-general-schmitt-five-other-states-file-suit-challenging-biden-administration-s-student-loan-cancellation-program https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/09/29/attorney-general-sch...

EarlKing 4y ago

They are not defacto governments. They are holding themselves out as Common Carriers when it suits them, and therefore to obtain the privileges that pertain to that status they should be required to meet certain criteria that one would expect from a Common Carrier, such as Equal Access (in the sense of what was provided by RBOCs to CLECs after the breakup of Ma Bell/AT&T) and true Network Neutrality. You don't get to be a Common Carrier and be a publisher. It's one or the other. Editorializing means you become a publisher and take responsibility for everything that goes on your site just as a newspaper would. Don't like it? Be a Common Carrier. We don't need any new law... we just need to apply existing legal principles and stop pussyfooting around it. Either they're Common Carriers or they're not. Either they're deserving of Section 230's protections or they're not. Pick one.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
I’ve taken strong pushback (on here, and Twitter) for a couple of years for saying these things. People want to get hyper technical about what a “common carrier” is and has been, historically, and how it’s not actually analogous. I get all of that. It’s time to modify and expand the definition. Hopefully, more people are waking up to the truth of this.
- nfgivivu 4y ago
  It's because most people can't handle hypotheticals very well in general. Assuming social networks are common carriers means also assuming that laws and law enforcement would need to adapt to the resulting spam filled environment. People would also need to adjust the way they communicate online, you'd need to create something similar to google plus circles to allow free and open discussion that is self moderated. You'd need new forms of trust protocols. You'd need... Most people just can't fathom how much would need to change to make the internet work. They try to fit in what we have now and just say well that won't work so you're wrong. I've noticed people also struggle with the big tech censorship argument. The amount of times I've said, censorship laws should extend to social networks and been met with "censorship only applies to government" arguments as if that wasn't the exact premise my argument started with just boggles the mind. Yes, I know, they're private companies, I'm advocating for changing laws so they do apply, not applying laws that don't apply.

_cenw 4y ago

A street corner is not the same as social media. A street corner speech will always have limited impact, unless someone films it and uploads it to YouTube. This amplification used to be a privilege of the media, and there are upsides and downsides to everyone having a chance at such reach now, and a lot of questionable incentives bound to how such reach can be attained. Instead of one Overton window, we now have multiple, bound to their social media audiences. To properly disseminate all this information is a full-time job for a human brain and most people just seem to stick with what seems proper to them. When can we have this conversation instead of the tired "social media censorship" debate.

nradov 4y ago

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested that Congress consider extending common carrier legislation to cover social media platforms. This would essentially prohibit social media companies from removing any legal content (perhaps including some forms of spam), but they would still be able to give users tools for filtering content that they see. This would be a form of compelled speech, which does raise 1st Amendment concerns. But in principle it's no different from forcing telephone companies to carry all voice traffic without active censorship. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...

bradgessler 4y ago

Governments will always be happy to permit monopolies to large networks in exchange for monitoring & control. Likewise; large networks will happily grant access to governments in exchange for them staying off their back and keeping completion to a minimum.

kornhole 4y ago

Thank you for explaining it like that. Some refer to these platforms as GACC(Government, AI, Corporate Controlled), but this could be abbreviated to simply government controlled. These governments are not elected by the people and are primarily driven by profit. Inverted totalitarianism is when economics besets politics.